There is a second exchange of articles between Richard Hays and Nigel Biggar in the latest Studies in Christian Ethics.
The first exchange was in last year - Studies in Christian Ethics 22.2 (May 2009):
Nigel Biggar, 'Specify and Distinguish! Interpreting the New Testament on `Non-Violence' '
Richard B. Hays, 'Narrate and Embody: A Response To Nigel Biggar, `Specify and Distinguish''
The second exchange - Studies in Christian Ethics 23.1 (February 2010):
Nigel Biggar, 'The New Testament and Violence: Round Two'
Richard B. Hays, 'The Thorny Task of Reconciliation: Another Response to Nigel Biggar'
While Hays, I think won the first round, by a fair margin, Biggar lands some critical 'punches' in the second round, although I think Hays still comes out ahead. Hays is just better exegetically. Biggar (a just war proponent) is unconvinced by Hays' non-violent reading of Jesus' narrative. He concludes
I persist in thinking that just war doctrine can do better justice than pacifism to all the relevant material in the New Testament. It strongly affirms that followers of Jesus are forbidden to be vengeful and hateful; that they are called to intend peace, to have compassion, and to forebear; and that in some circumstances—either where they are not authorised to bear the public sword, or where to exercise that authority would be disproportionate and indiscriminate—they are called to leave themselves vulnerable to injury. In addition, it can explain why soldiers in the New Testament are never criticised for
being soldiers (23.1, p.80).
But as Hays notes 'the New Testament never narrates an act of sword-wielding heroism by a Christian' (23.1, p.82). Hays concludes
I do not mean to trivialise the moral seriousness of your advocacy for just war. I just think that you have made bad exegetical arguments: you have dragooned the New Testament texts into the service of a cause antithetical to their own testimony (23.1, p.86).